Transcript

for attending today's subcommittee hearing. My name is Councillor Zee Russell. I'm the chair of the Statutory Licensing Committee, and I shall be chairing the hearing today. Before we commence with the hearings procedure, I just need to advise you that today's meeting is being broadcast live via the Council's internet site, and that members of the public may record and take photographs except for where there are confidential items. Just a few housekeeping rules for those that have not visited previously. We're not expecting a fire alarm, so if one does sound, we will make our way out of the building and assemble at the piazza, which is at the front of the building. Toilets can be found by the lift area out to the right. And can I just ask everyone to please turn their mobile phones off or on to silent before we proceed so it just doesn't interrupt the proceedings. I will now call on the licensing subcommittee members to introduce themselves. Councillor Budd. Councillor Jill Waldman, member of the licensing subcommittee. Thank you both. I will now ask our committee clerk, Donna, to read out the names of everyone here, and if you could just kindly introduce yourself so we get to know who's who. Over to you, Donna. Thank you, chair. So if we start with the applicant. Richard. Morning. Present, Richard Taylor, solicitor for ASDA. Hello, my name is Neil Eccles. I'm the last and licensing manager for ASDA. Thank you. Thank you. And then we'll move on to responsible authorities. Kayleigh. Good morning. Kayleigh Nixon, Westminster Police Licensing Department. Bal. Good morning. It's Bal Lee, Hull, Westminster Police Licensing Officer. Hi. Hi, I'm Faye Pearson, environmental health officer for the Hampton Council. Emma. Hi, morning. Emma Caddick, service manager for environmental health. Monique. Hi, Monique Garakai. I'm health improvement officer for public health. Ryan. Good morning, everybody. Ryan Hollings, senior public health specialist. Represent public health's responsible authority. Greg. Morning all. Greg Bickerdike, licensing manager and responsible authority for the licensing authority. Thank you. And then we'll move on to other persons. Interested parties, if we start with Ben. Councillor Ben Evans, Mary Hill. Carol. That's the Carol Hyatt, Councillor from Mary Hill Ward. Wendy. Good morning. I'm Wendy Dalton, Mary Hill, Conservative Councillor. Nigel. Nigel Van. I'm representing a local resident representing a group of local residents who live in Mary Hill, mainly from Colway Road and New Street, which is right adjacent to the service station there. Thank you. If you can turn your microphone off, Nigel. Thank you. Then we'll move on to officers. Deborah. Morning. Deborah Crainer, section leader in licensing and compliance for the city council. Thank you. Ronald. Good morning, everybody. I'm Ronald St. Pepperworth, solicitor and legal advisor to the committee. Thank you. And I'm Donna Cove. I work in democratic services, and I clerk the meetings. To my right is Jaz Core, also democratic services, and she'll be doing the live stream for us today. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Donna. We're now at agenda item one. Donna, are there any apologies for absence? None received, chair. Thank you. Councillors, do you have any decorations of interest? No, chair. No, chair. And I have none either. Item three, the application for a premise license in respect to Vassar Express, PFS, Mary Hill, 220 to 230 Colway Road, Wolverhampton, WV3 7NN. We shall be following the procedure for the new premises license application that is set out before you. And for information, we're at part three. Can I confirm with Donna, the clerk, that everyone has been sent a copy of the procedure? Yes, chair, they have. And does everybody understand that procedure? Thank you. Just to make you aware, this is not a court hearing or cross examination or anything like that. There will be no oaths taken. It's just so the subcommittee can establish what the problems exist and how these can be resolved for everybody. Although this is a public meeting, only those who have indicated to speak will be allowed to speak. Questions will be allowed to clarify any point that has been raised. The subcommittee may ask questions of those who address it. We're here today because an important decision needs to be made. So we need to hear all the evidence on people's views in a calm and civil manner. I would ask everyone to maintain polite behavior and any comments be made through me, the chair. I will not permit back and forth arguments. And anyone who acts in a disruptive manner may be asked to leave. We are now part six of the procedure. And I shall ask the officer from licensing to outline the report. Thank you, chair. The statutory licensing subcommittee are here today to consider an application for a premises license in respect of Asda Express 220 to 230 Colway Road, Wolverhampton WV 37NN. The application was received on the 30th of April, 2024 from Euro Garages Limited for a premises license in respect of Asda Express PFF Maryhill 220 to 230 Colway Road, Wolverhampton WV 37NN, and is in respect of the provision of late night refreshment and the sale and supply of alcohol off the premises. A copy of the application can be found at appendix one. The premises are in the Maryhill ward. And a location plan is attached at appendix two. The application was made properly. And all statutory requirements have been complied with by the licensing authority. All responsible authorities have been consulted on this application. Relevant representation has been received from West Midlands Police, Public Health, Environmental Health, the Licensing Authority, and other persons. And copies of those representations can be found at appendices three to 24 respectively. West Midlands Police and Environmental Health have mediated with the applicant. And this correspondence can be found at appendices 25 and 26. The licensing authority and the solicitor acting for the applicant have made an attempt at mediation. A copy of this correspondence can be found at appendices 27 to 29. Further correspondence between the solicitor and the licensing authority have been received. And you'll find this information in the supplementary agenda pack. The applicant and the applicant's agent and all those who have submitted representations have been invited to attend the hearing today. The application is before the subcommittee for consideration. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Deb. Donna, can you confirm that a copy of the report has been sent out to all parties in advance of the meeting? Yes, chair, I can. Can I confirm the report read out to yourself that the applicant is accurate? Yes, I've got no problem with that. I would like to ask Deborah just one question about that report. This is just about this part at the moment, so you'll have your chance shortly. We're now at part seven of the procedure where the applicant is to present their case in form. If you could please put your case to the subcommittee. Thank you. Chair, thank you very much indeed. The questions I was going to ask, Deborah, I don't know if you want me to ask it now. I'll tell you what I was going to ask. OK. I need to be very, very clear from the outset here that whilst this application was originally an application that sought alcohol sales 24 hours a day, it was amended nearly five weeks ago. It was amended on the 23rd of May following my discussions with Kayleigh. Hi, Kayleigh. To an application which now seeks alcohol sale hours of seven in the morning until 11 at night. And the way the conversation went was Kayleigh said when we spoke, this isn't an area of 24 hour licensing. And I said, thank you very much. I'll take that back to Asda. And I said to Kayleigh, six till midnight. And she said, still too late. And the next offer was, well, how about 7/11? Because that's basically as short hours as the estate has. And that was acceptable as far as Kayleigh was concerned. And following those discussions with Kayleigh, and then I amended the application. So I'm not seeking an alcohol license 24 hours a day anymore. I'm seeking an alcohol sales of seven in the morning to 11 in the evening. So as far as the application is concerned, having got over that hurdle, I'll deal with this application in three parts. And it won't take me 20 minutes. You'll be pleased to know. The three parts of these, I'll deal with the applicant. I'll deal with the application and the measures that we intend to take to promote the licensing objectives. And I'll deal with some of the issues and the themes that appear in the letters of representation. And that shouldn't take me as long now, because you've seen lots of letters of representation say 11 o'clock's plenty late enough, 11 o'clock's plenty late enough. Well, we accept that, having had our conversations with Kayleigh. So the first part is the applicant. Well, the applicant is Euro Garages Limited, which was acquired by Asda Group last year. Now, these premises will operate as an Asda. I've acted for Asda-- this is my proud boast-- since before this legislation came into force. And I've dealt with every Asda application since 2005. Asda is a company with nearly 1,000 licensed premises, serving millions of customers a week. And in all of the time that I have acted for Asda, I've never had to sit in front of a committee like this to defend the company on an application for review. Quite simply, that is testament to the quality of Asda's policies, its procedures, its training to ensure that all of its stores operate without any difficulty whatsoever as far as licensing is concerned. So that's the applicant. As far as the application is concerned, well, it's an application for a premises license for a shop that already trades 24 hours a day. It trades as a convenience store, selling ready meals, groceries, household goods. And the application is simply to allow a complementary limited alcohol range. If somebody wants a ready meal and they want a bottle of wine, absolutely fine. If they want something in a pack of beers, then of course that's no problem at all. And you've heard that we've had these conversations with Kayleigh and neither Kayleigh nor Environmental Health are objects to this application in the terms that it's now made. And the question that I end up asking you at the end is, what difference is it going to make if we can put a bottle of wine on a shelf at a time when we're already open? Is that going to cause any difficulty whatsoever on the basis that that alcohol product will be sold responsibly as it is across the UK? And we know the evidence is without any difficulty whatsoever. Just dealing with late night refreshments. The application remains for late night refreshment from 11 until 5. And the reason, and the only reason, is that there is a coffee machine. And we are very happy to have a condition that limits late night refreshment to the sale of hot drinks only. Not interested in doing food. There's no hot food. There's nothing like that. The store will be open. It will be operated through a night hatch. If a driver wants a whatever and a cup of coffee, then we will happily give them it. But there's no food or anything like that. So the steps to promote the licensing objectives. Well, everything you'd expect from a major operator. So full digital CCTV, full staff training. That training is refreshed. Training includes Challenge 25, acceptable identifications, proxy sales, sales to drunks. Everything that you need to know to responsibly sell alcohol. In convenience stores, ASDA has all of its spirits and high value products behind the counter. And what it doesn't do is sell the sort of products that appeal to street drinkers. So no white ciders, no port, no sherry, no perry, no half bottles or smaller of wine. Everything is possible, is done, to produce a range that is complementary to the groceries, to the household products that's already sold. We are not interested. We do not want to sell to people who want one can of beer to go and drink it outside. And there's no evidence to suggest that that happens anywhere else at all. So the range is designed to discourage that sort of thing. Obviously, Challenge 25, that's supported by till prompts. You've all experienced that when your purchase is paused, because the product scanned is an age restricted fan. ASDA also operates independent test purchasing. It engages an independent organization to go into all of its stores, or to send young people, 18, 19, 20, into its stores to check that the colleagues in an ASDA store implement all of their training, and that they challenge when they should challenge, and that they refuse when they should refuse. And again, it's all done to ensure that alcohol is sold as responsibly as possible. And as far as the petrol filling stations are concerned, all sales are conducted through a night hatch between 10 in the evening and 6 in the morning. The only people admitted into the store between those are the emergency services, because the emergency services might want to come in and have a coffee, or use the toilets, or whatever it is. So you will have seen in the supplementary information that came through yesterday, that I tried to provide a ready reckoner of all of the conditions that we'd agreed, so that they were all in one place, as opposed to split over various parts of the papers. And you've seen it's at page 3, 4, and 5 of the agenda. The conditions that we agreed with the police, the condition that we agreed with Faye from environmental health, a number of conditions that we have agreed with Greg on behalf of the licensing authority, and right at the end, a couple of conditions that I think are what sits between us. And those are conditions 17 and 18. Now, ASDA does not split multi-packs. It doesn't sell single cans, really, of very many products at all. But there are certain craft or premium products that do not come in multi-packs. And therefore, the condition that we've offered to Greg is that there'll be no sales of single cans of beers, lagers, or ciders, save for the premium or craft products. There are only sold as single units. Multi-packs must not be split. That's not quite enough for Greg. I'm not going to steal his thunder, but he wants an absolute prohibition on single cans. Similarly, sales of alcohol are not to include super strength beer ciders where the ABV exceeds 6.5%. I think we're much closer on that one, but you've seen that we offered a condition that is acceptable to us as well. So just to the residents and council representations, you've seen those. Lots and lots are about 24 hours, and I think that's a hangover from a planning application that was made last year for redevelopment of the site. The fact is the store is open 24 hours. There's nothing planning wise to stop it opening 24 hours. This is now a 7-Eleven alcohol license application. And I hope our amendment has addressed an awful lot of those concerns. What we see is references to antisocial behavior. We see references to crime. We've seen references to certain problems. But the fact is that for the hours that we've applied for, the police don't object. And of course, the police are the committee's principal source of advice on issues of crime and disorder as far as the home office guidance is concerned. That's paragraph 2.1. So what's left? Well, we've got Greg's representation. Now, we're agreed on closing time. Greg and I met, and we've had an awful lot of dialogue. I have offered a start time of 6 AM, which wasn't acceptable to Greg. I offered subsequently 7, which I know Greg will talk to you about in a minute. And then we've got the single cans application. What I will say to you is what Greg is asking for as far as start times, what's Greg's asking for on paper, there isn't an ASDA in the estate with a start time for alcohol sales as late as he's asking for. The latest we've got is 8 o'clock. And that is in an area where there is a cumulative impact policy and specified core hours within the policy. Similarly, we don't have a premise in the estate at the moment that has an absolute prohibition on the sale of single cans of beer, lager, and cider. We're quite happy with the conditions that we've offered, but we want the carve out for locally produced products that may become available that aren't available as single. And they're not the sort of thing that street drinkers want, because they're expensive, but we'd like to be able to sell them. So that's where we are. Now, Monique has exactly the same-- I'm sorry, Monique. Has very similar issues to Greg, but I think we're about there as far as Monique is concerned. So as far as the supplementary information that came through yesterday, you saw a two liter bottle of cider. Well, I've already said that that's been-- the range online and the range in the big shops isn't what's available in the smaller ones for very obvious reasons. That two liter bottle of cider is not available. The Henry Weston's cider, there are some convenience stores where that is available as a multi-pack, as a pack of six, but not as a single unit. But we've said to Greg, if you don't want us to sell that here, we're quite happy not to. Simple as that. So we're very, very close, members of the committee, but we're not quite there, I don't think. But if I can help you with anything else-- I haven't taken up my 20 minutes, but if I can help you with anything else, then we're here to answer those questions. Otherwise, those are the submissions on behalf of Asda. Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Councillors, do you have any questions for the applicant? Councillor Abbott? Councillor Waldman? No questions, Chair. I just have one on regarding any issues with the petrol station as is. Have there been any reports of anti-social behaviour, crime, street drinking that's been made to your knowledge? It's the first question I ask when an application goes to hearing and we have resident objections. The first question I ask of the regional manager is, have you had any reported instances of any difficulties of that nature? And it came back and said, no, it's been open 24 hours. There's nothing-- Excuse me, can we have a bit of silence? Please let the gentleman speak, please. I'm reporting what was said to me, as simple as that. And I'm reporting it honestly, and I appreciate the respect that that deserves. Yes. That was the question I asked. Do you have problems with people's street drinking and problems of anti-social behaviour in or around the store? No, we don't. Was the information back to me? Now, if Kayleigh said there's issues of crime and disorder and anti-social behaviour, they would be very deaf. I mean, Kayleigh is here, but she'd be representing to tell you about it. So I accept with any premise that is open 24 hours that people are using, there are sometimes going to be issues of noise. But what I'm saying to you is that the sale of alcohol at a time when we're already open, vended responsibly or sold responsibly, won't make any difference whatsoever. Okay, thank you. That's the only question I had. Environmental Health, do you have any questions for the applicant? No, thank you, Chair. Public Health, do you have any questions for the applicant? No, thank you, Chair. The Licensing Authority, do you have any questions for the applicant? Thank you, Chair, yes, through you. Does the premises currently have an incident log? Yes, it does. Okay. So it should be any incidents of anti-social behaviour or anything like that or crimes reported there would be logged in that incident log, yeah? Yeah, anything that has crimes reported, any instance of... an important nature would be in that incident log, yes. So there was nothing in the incident log about anything at all or it was just the manager reported that there wasn't anything in there? The manager reported to me and I referred it to Richard. I asked the area manager and the store manager was there any reports of any issues with customers, complaints or any disruption around strict drinking and they said there was nothing that they were aware of at that time. Okay, and you obviously mentioned your comprehensive training and presumably includes training on how to log incidents in the log. It's all e-learning and it's part of the module in that. It tells you how to report incidents in the refusals log and in the incident log as well. Okay, thank you. Can I just say that there is an incident log condition as things stand. Of course there isn't a premises license, there is no condition and so there is no requirement for things to be logged at the moment but we do operate an incident log as far as customers are concerned. There was a little bit of a video that we saw, that's not the sort of person that we want or would be serving. I just wondered if there weren't any incidents recorded because they weren't in the log or because the log doesn't exist but that's fine. Just to confirm, does the business include petrol pumps as a whole or is that a separate limited company or is it just all one thing? I'm not sure it's relevant to this application but Eurogarages Limited has been acquired in full by Astor. So the company selling the petrol is the same company as is applying for the license now. It's just sometimes they're split. Well this isn't and there will be a time when the petrol contract runs out that this will go over to Astor branded petrol as opposed to other branded petrol. But that's subject to and it will make it cheaper. What time do you start using the hatch? What are the hatch times? I mean across the estate it's ten till six. We have other start times and what we've agreed here is ten till six. And if a license is granted it will be ten till six. It's often left to the staff on site if they wish to close earlier for security reasons or whatever or open it later. Unless there's a licensing condition we leave it to them but we like ten till six. The condition offered and agreed is ten till six. That's fine. The Tannoy system there's been representations in the pack about the Tannoy system. Since purchasing it from Eurogarages has there been any upgrade or changes to the Tannoy system? Well no there haven't and the Tannoy system is of course nothing to do with the sale of alcohol. The Tannoy system is there for safety. If somebody is doing something when they're filling a car up with petrol that they shouldn't be doing. If somebody's you know got out with a lighted cigarette or a mobile telephone or something. But it's not, the Tannoy system bears no, has no bearing on the premises license application. Okay I'll leave that. Yeah I mean so obviously the problem that we've got is the craft product and I think that it's been a very difficult situation because I'm trying to identify which of the products specifically and then when obviously we came to the ones on the ASDA website and you've agreed to rule those out and obviously it's not practical for either of us to individually go through every product in the range and kind of work out which ones could be sold or which couldn't be sold. Have you had any other consideration about how we could tweak that condition in a way that's suitable in that it achieves the goal of creating a de facto price barrier without specifying a price in there that prevents people from buying you know for street drinkers having a single sale and then wandering around with the individual kind of high strength alcohol or bottle you know potentially 8.2% I know that you've agreed to rule that out but that was a very that was a specific example I was trying to find most people would agree that 8% cider is quite hefty. Let's be very clear about the 8% cider that is a product that's not available as a single in the convenience estate. They'd be able to buy it as a single in the super stores in the large stores but not in the companies estate because everything done with the range is designed to ensure that this is not for immediate consumption you know. So what I will say to you Greg is that with a thousand stores and you know an ASDA in almost every local authority area in the land the condition that appears at 17 is the condition that's accepted and operated everywhere else. ASDA as a company has operated for all of this time without any problem and we work with the authorities. I appreciate that there is a little bit of subjectivity there but that is not subjectivity that causes concern anywhere else and of course this particular authority has agreed that condition on the grant of an ASDA petrol filling station on Stafford Road. The Gateway filling station on 907 Stafford Road which was granted within the last month or so or couple of months has exactly that condition on it and we just want some sort of uniformity and what I would say to you is if the committee is going to look at who is the best person to retail responsibly do they go to the large multinational company that's been doing it without problem for years or does it try to reinvent the wheel and I will invite the committee to say look we're as good as our word, we operate without any difficulty whatsoever, if we can carve that out we can carve that out. What I will say that final condition is we can agree if we absolutely have to and that's that there will be no sales of beer, lager or cider above 6.5%. We would want the opportunity to sell that individual can of craft beer if it's only available as a single. We can't just start creating multipacks. Okay, thank you chair, no further questions. Thank you Greg. West Berlin's Police, do you have any questions for the applicant? Not at this time, thank you chair. Interested parties, do you have any questions for the applicant? Carol? Thank you chair, what I would like is clarification of three sentences that you have said. You've mentioned that you would like permission to sell locally produced alcohol in wands which means that locally produced alcohol which could have a higher alcohol content could be produced in one small beer. You're actually asking to sell that, that's what you said? Yes, what we are saying is... Which is completely against the rules that you apply for nationally produced products where you don't want to sell them as a one, is that correct? I think and I'm sorry if I've not been very clear on this. Thank you. In its convenience stores, ASDA does not split multipacks so if there is for the sake of our... That's okay, I understand that but it was the application of saying that you would sell something in a single bottle if it was produced locally and of high alcohol content but you wouldn't sell something which was like a nationally available product which was sold singularly and has a high alcohol content. The way the company works is if it views something as a craft or an artisan or as a product and that product is not available as a single then it would like the opportunity to sell them and that's what it does across the nation without any difficulty whatsoever. Neil, did you want to say something? You looked like you were going to. Sorry, Councillor Hyatt, I think Rich has already offered the absolute ban of anything above 6.5% ABV, that would exclude anything locally produced, nationally produced, anywhere produced above 6.5% so that would negate that offer completely. Beers, lagers and siders. Beers, lagers and siders, yeah obviously not wines or spirits but beers, lagers and siders above 6.5% we would be happy to completely exclude that from our range. I already spoke to our buyers yesterday about this and they said they're happy to do that too. That would completely remove that risk, is what I think you're talking about, of doing that. That's just an example of what we would like to do and we have done in other stores across the UK, however we would stop that completely in this store. Thank you very much. My second one was when you said the phrase 'the sale of alcohol won't make any difference whatsoever'. I just don't understand how you can absolutely assert that. Well we are a company that trades nearly a thousand licensed premises. We are in the middle of a conversion project for all of the Eurogarages estates to convert those into ASDA expresses. We are 280, 290 applications in and the sale of alcohol at any of those premises has caused no issues whatsoever. These are premises of course that are open anyway and what we're doing is moving something off a shelf to put a bottle of wine on it and what I'm saying to you is that that's made no difference whatsoever. What we have heard, we've heard lots and lots of 'oh well it'll create drink driving', there isn't any evidence to support that at all. There is no evidence that the sale of alcohol from a petrol filling station causes drink driving or burglary or anything and when you think about it, it makes perfect sense. There isn't a supermarket in the land to which there is not vehicular access and there's no evidence whatsoever to suggest that people go in and drink their purchases in the car. It just doesn't happen. So what I'm saying to you is the evidence is, and we have the evidence, that the sale of alcohol from a shop that's already open hasn't caused any difficulties whatsoever. Thank you for that clarification of your awareness of the situation so far. And then my last point was that you said you were seeking uniformity. What I don't understand is how can there possibly be uniformity where the situation is often very different. The end of the Stafford Road to the middle of a residential area is very different. The local conditions with respect to the vulnerability of the young populations and the experience of the young populations will be very different. The experience of residents who live close to, right by the filling stations will always be very different. Surely it's hyper local and context specific. The decisions that we are asking our councillors to make, it can't possibly be uniform because you're meeting a need and you are respecting the needs of the residents and your absolute single most thing is not for uniformity but to do no harm. As it strives to be a good neighbour, we want to be a benefit to the community, not a burden upon it. We have a business to run, we have products that we want to sell and we come to these committees and we say this is what we'd like to do, this is how we would like to do it. And we are very, very happy to meet with anybody at any time to discuss that. As far as young people are concerned, child safeguarding, they have no issues with this application at all and there isn't any evidence whatsoever of ASDA causing any difficulties as far as young people are concerned. I wholly accept that we need to be part of the community in which we sit and we need to be respectful of that, yes. But it works the other way as well. We also have a business to run which runs along particular lines and this is the way we do it and this is the way that works and this is the way that causes no problems. It's a balance. Thank you. Councillor Dalton. Thank you. I'm very on my gas really because there's been lots of complaints to the garage about situations. I've spoken on many occasions to the managers there, a male manager and a female manager, I often pop in. I'm surprised the police, environmental health and everybody else seems unaware because it's been raised at pack meetings, we've had residents turn up with evidence on their phones, Chief Inspector Bird's been involved and he promised he was going to help sort things. So there's a trust issue here and when I hear that you say there's nothing then that concerns me greatly. Well, let me make this offer to you, irrespective of the decision today, we will swap details on you and Neil because I'm the hired help. You and Neil can swap details and then you've got somebody at a much higher level who will do everything he can to address any concerns that you have. That's my next question. Are you Neil? Are you the premises supervisor? Yes, but for application purposes only. I make it really, really clear for everybody. And I've put my name as the DPS for every single garage in the UK for the application only. When we start to trade alcohol in that site, we will train people to be personal license holders at the site and they will be made the DPS in that site with nobody. No store will sell alcohol under my name whatsoever. It'll be literally the person in the store who they stay responsible for running the premises as a DPS. Just to flesh that out, the application itself requires that a designated premises supervisor is specified and that designated premises supervisor is a personal license holder. If the license is granted, then it will be handed over to the local management team. I have sat on this panel for a few years somewhere. Do beg your pardon? In a previous life also, I used to manage fuel stocks for a large supermarket. So I understand your business and I'm very happy that you've actually cited yourself as a convenience store rather than a fuel station because I believe you've transitioned to that. So I understand your business, I understand the legislation, so bear with me. Sorry, I'm definitely not trying to teach you to say things. No, no, it's okay. I just want you to understand where I'm coming from. Usually in these situations, I would like to see the person who would be on a day-to-day because I need to understand how often that competent person is actually going to be on site. How often will yourself be visiting this particular site to check everything's in order. You've just said that you're a name across many and again that raises another flag to me because usually I'd like to see the person sitting there who is usually responsible. How are you going to manage that? The store manager who will be the DPS in the site will be there every day, five days a week. He's not seven days a week, but they also have an assistant manager who will get in training as a PLH as well. So there'll be two people that are PLH trained in the site. The area manager that is in charge of the whole of the area for 20 stores or so is there at least once a week, more if needed, and we speak to him regularly about that. So the people who will be running the store will be in their site every single day. As Richard explained, for the purposes of application, we did 356, like it was in total, applications at the same time. I've got my personal license in my bag. Nobody else in the Euogoges estate had a license to apply for them. We're also training 604 people across the estates to be license holders so that they can then be the DPS. I will not have any operation responsibility at all for that site. I've been to the site, but I won't be there going forward at all, if that makes sense. Your name's on the paper, so the book will stop with you. You need to make sure that you know... When the store's opened and the license is hopefully granted, we change to somebody else. Let me be very clear. This store, if a license is granted, will not sell alcohol until an application to vary the license to specify the on-site DPS has been made and granted. One last question. Sorry, Chair, through you. Deliveries. I've been in many times about deliveries. They happen even when we've agreed, nothing before 7 o'clock. We have them turn up at 4 o'clock, bank holidays, blah, blah, blah. You know, the poor guy who lives right next to it, you know, he's half mad. You know, so really, if you can just clarify, there will not be deliveries outside of that window. So one of the conditions that we agreed with FAY was about deliveries. And it's there, it's at number four of page three of the supplementary agenda. Arrangements should be put in place to ensure that deliveries and collections to the site after the first of July 2024 are carried out between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday to Sunday. That becomes, if this is granted, a condition of the premises license. Of course, breach of a condition of a premises license would lead us to review. We've not faced review ever so far, touch wood. And is a criminal offense. The reason that we had to specify the date when we were discussing it with FAY was because we needed a long enough window to make sure that we could get the delivery schedule changed. And so that's why the first of July specified, which is of course next week. Thank you. Councillor Evans. Has a crime been reported or recorded in the last two weeks at the premises? Not of which we're aware, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it hasn't. OK. What type of thing would you expect someone to report? So if someone didn't pay the full price of a good, would that have to be reported? They walked off without paying for it basically. Well that's theft. Yes. So yes. I'd hope so, yeah. So are you going to give evidence that you walked in and stole something and walked out again? No, no. I'm just saying that I use this shop like most people who live in the area do. And on the 18th of June, the afternoon, I saw someone walk out without paying for their chocolate bar. I think they paid for some of it, but not the full price. So, yeah, it doesn't fill me with confidence that if that hasn't been reported. Well, I mean, we're a victim. We don't want to be a victim. We have security systems and, I mean, we don't want to be the victim of crime. Is that it, Ben? OK, thank you. Sorry, Nigel, do you want to ask? Sorry I missed you out, you were ever so quiet. Sorry. Yeah, I just want to read out some notes that we've made, representing a group of residents. Sorry, Nigel, not, we're just on questions. It's just questions. Yeah, sorry. Sorry, no, no questions at the moment. See, I brought you into earlier. Sorry, actually, no, there is one. Go on then, Nigel. There was an incident reported earlier this month of somebody banging on the windows in the early hours of the morning. I'm not sure what the date is, I've got those details at home, but not with me today. Somebody banging on the doors and windows early hours of the morning, demanding entry to the shop. I can't answer that, Nigel, I'm sorry. But you said there's nothing on the incident log, say. No, no, no, no. Just doesn't fill us with great confidence. What we said is we rang the area manager, we spoke to the manager and we asked, whenever it was, you know, were there any particular issues. And the message that we got back was no. Now, we're hearing different things, Neil's just made the note, we need to get together, we need to talk about these things. But we're very, very happy to do that. Okay, thank you. Ronald, do you have any questions or any issues and legal points that we need to be made aware of? No, no to both questions at this point. Thank you. Next, we move on to the responsible authority, which is public health. Would you please make your representations to the committee? Public health originally raised representations on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder. Can you just move the mic a little bit near you, we've got a quiet voice. My fault. We're on number 28, sorry. We're now part eight of the procedure where the responsible authorities will make their representations. We will start with environmental health. Please make your representations. Sorry, I'm trying to get you in too quick. Good morning. My name is Faye Pearson. I'm a senior environmental health officer for Wolverhampton City Council in commercial regulation. Environmental health act in the capacity as a responsible authority for Wolverhampton City Council in regards to public nuisance on receipt of this application. There was insufficient detail within the operating schedule to show how the applicant would be addressing the licensing objective of prevention of public nuisance. Environmental health and mindful that complaints have been received in the past regarding and sociable hours of deliveries and collections to the premises, creating disturbance to nearby residents. With this in mind, mediation with the applicant was undertaken and as a means to reduce impact on local residents, the following item was agreed. Arrangements shall be put in place to ensure that deliveries and collections to the site after the 1st of July 2024 are carried out between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday to Sunday. Provided that the proposed new condition is met, environmental health are happy for the license to be granted. Thank you. Thank you. Councillors, do you have any questions for public health? No questions, Chair. And I don't have any questions. You've answered my question already. Environmental health, do you have any questions for public health? The applicant, do you have any questions for public health? The licensing authority, do you have any questions for environmental health? Interested parties, do you have any questions for environmental health? Thank you, Chair. Can I ask, when it was just a garage prior to Asta Local taking over the small shop that was there, what was the window for deliveries then? As far as I understand, but this would be a planning matter. There was no restrictions at all in terms of deliveries as a planning consent. So they could make deliveries at any time. But that would be for a planning officer to confirm. Thank you. Just to confirm then, my awareness was that deliveries were very firmly only during daylight hours and weren't very often because the volume of trade as a store selling food items and stuff was actually minimal at that point in time. So that there is change afoot. It's not business as usual. It's how do we manage the change that is happening in that local environment? Sorry, is there a question? No? Okay. Councillor Dalton, your question? I concur. There wasn't any set date, but I'd managed to get an agreement from the garage and you stick to it quite a lot, but we still have it outside of that. It was an agreement between myself and the garage. Now I get confused between environmental and public still, so forgive me. Who would be responsible for an accumulative impact assessment? Sorry, licensing. That's come down to you, Greg. I'll wait for that one. Technically that sort of comes under Dev's team, but it's very confusing, don't worry. But yeah, there's none scheduled as far as I know to be done for that area of the city. Is it something you'd consider? So if they were drinking off-prem, if it went through, we could hit it that way. Can we look at that? Can we put that anywhere, Chair? We can ask the question at our next briefing, if you want, Greg. Yeah, I think that we need to discuss this. That's a much wider thing than just applying there. And regardless, we wouldn't be able to, it wouldn't apply to this premises anyway. But I appreciate your concern and obviously CIZs and things do that. So we'll sort that out another time, I think. Thank you both. Ronald, do we have any questions for Environmental Health or are there any legal points we should be made aware of? No, Chair. Next we move on to the Public Health representation. Could you please make your representation to the subcommittee? It is your turn now. Hi, Chair. Public Health has raised representations on the grounds of prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm regarding the license application submitted by ASDA. As a responsible authority, we have a duty across all four licensing objectives supporting the ongoing work within the City to reduce alcohol-related harm. Following constructive discussion with another responsible authority and a licensing application agent, several conditions were suggested and agreed upon. These include the prohibition of super strength alcohol, no single sales, as well as strengthening proposed conditions in relation to staff training and the maintenance of an incident and refusal log. In addition to these conditions being prepared, Public Health has raised concerns in regard to the requested timings of sales and supply of alcohol off premises 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. These timings undermine the existing activities taking place in the City, only raising the likelihood of risk to those affected by alcohol-related harm. Public Health are in agreement with the licensing authority that the sales of alcohol off the premises be restricted to 12 p.m. to 11 p.m. Monday to Sunday. The City of Wolverhampton experienced disproportionate levels of alcohol-related harm and hospital admissions compared to both regional and national averages. In 2021, Wolverhampton recorded significantly higher rates of alcohol-specific mortalities and hospital admissions for alcohol liver disease compared to the average for the West Midlands in England. The ward in question are disproportionately affected by high levels of deprivation. Research suggests those who live within the area of higher deprivations are more likely to be affected by alcohol harm. Furthermore, given the significant unmet need in relation to alcohol in Wolverhampton, which is estimated to be just under 80%, the suggested sales of alcohol will only increase the scale of alcohol harm in the City. As stated earlier within my presentation. Therefore, to conclude, Public Health recommend to the subcommittee the premises maintained the agreed upon conditions during mediation, including no sales of single cans or bottles of alcohol, prohibition of superstrain alcohol, specifically lagers beers and ciders, with alcohol exceeding 6.5%, maintenance of an incident and refusal log, comprehensive staff training whilst in addition ensuring the sale of alcohol off premises, alcohol be restricted to 12 p.m. to 11 p.m. Monday to Sunday be added to the premise license. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillors, do you have any questions? Councillor Booth? Councillor Waldman? No questions, Chair. I just have the one then. So basically, even the craft ales in single bottles, you don't want them being sold at this premise. Do I take that? So again, I think, taking back to Councillor Hyatt's point earlier, I think to take a universal approach to these particular craft beers within that particular area where we know that there's a disproportionate effect around alcohol harm, our suggestion would be no, not to include those beers. OK, thank you. Just wanted to make sure. Environmental Health, do you have any questions for Public Health? No, thank you, Chair. Licensing authority, do you have any questions for Public Health? No, thank you, Chair. Westlands Police, do you have any questions for Public Health? No, thank you, Chair. Interested parties, do you have any questions for Public Health? Councillor Hyatt? Thank you and I hope this is an appropriate question to ask, Chair. I know because I'm a resident about the disproportional effect of alcohol that can sometimes be seen and the effects of it amongst the residents in my ward. It's nobody that I know is asking for another place to buy alcohol, nobody at all. If it was an ideal world and you could have any decision at all that would best benefit the residents, would you say no alcohol sales, which is what we have at the moment? I think that's a difficult question to answer. I think to stop somebody from drinking alcohol completely, obviously it's against Human Rights in a sense, that's their decision and their opportunity. Point of clarification, Chair. I didn't mean it's a universal question, I meant because I'm well aware that you can buy alcohol in the area. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but there is a legal point here. So the purpose of the hearing as far as the regulations and the guidance is concerned is to allow anybody who's made a representation to amplify those representations, but what they can't do is introduce new things. Now, Monique's representation is very, very clear. It does not object to the grant of the licence at all, it requires certain conditions. Monique's representation does not refer to the hours at all, and if Public Health wants to make representations about the hours, then they should have done so. But the representation that you've got relates purely to conditions, not to the grant of the licence at all. There isn't a responsible authority here that is objecting to the grant of the licence, and I think we will be here an awful long time if we're now getting into utopian philosophies as to whether or not there should be any gambling, whether or not there should be any betting or water or alcohol sales at all. We very much need to stick to the point here, and we need to amplify the representations, not introduce new things. Carol, can we have a question that's on track, not around the edges, please? Okay then. Just for clarification, did you include a recommendation that sales should start at 12 noon and finish at 11? So within, I think, the original email that was sent, looking back, no. So that's an oversight in terms of that not being included. So in terms of the reps that we've proposed today, the wording in terms of raised shouldn't have been included, it should have been associated around potential concerns. But as the gentleman said, because we haven't included, we wouldn't be able to obviously refer back to that today. So the point of our representations is still very much around those super strength alcohol and single cans based upon, like I said, the evidence that we proposed today. And then as clarification as well, which I hope is okay, Chair, because it's only clarification, did you say that this area was an area with a disproportional, it is visible that there is a disproportional effect of alcohol harm in my ward, basically, in this area? So from the evidence that we know in terms of those that access treatment within that particular area, there are a significant number of people accessing treatment for drugs and alcohol. And as mentioned, there is a high level of unmet need within the city, which means there's a high proportion of people that are potentially living with some form of alcohol harm that aren't accessing treatment. And that's city-wide, that's not just necessarily within a particular ward, but like I said, that makes up 80%. And those statistics are sort of nationally recognised. Thank you very much for that clarification. Thank you, Councillor Dalton. I believe it's Wolverhampton's Health and Wellbeing Strategy to reduce the amount of licences within the city. Isn't it a fact that Wolverhampton has the highest number of licence premises per square kilometre in the West Midlands, 11, much higher than the national average of 1.3? Treatment data says that in Merryhill, 69 people are receiving treatment from alcohol drugs, just that we know too, without those who live with it on our day-to-day. If we look at specific wards such as St Peter's, Park, Graysleve and which border us, you will see a correlation between the higher number of outlets and the high number of residents needing treatment all across to us. Do you want that for Merryhill? We have had 12 alcoholic-specific deaths between 2019 and '23, which is 12 too many. Thank you. So, yeah, to go back to your original point, yeah, it is one of our aims. And as you mentioned, I think it is evident that there's a high proportion of alcohol licence premises within Wolverhampton in comparison to West Midlands neighbours. And again, there's a high proportion of those that are selling off like who have got off licence as well. And I think what is evident since Covid-19, that there's been an increase of people drinking from home and off licence and the evidence suggests that. And I think one of the things that obviously we're looking to do is work with licence premises to make sure that they are limiting and mitigating the harms that can be associated with alcohol. What we are aware of, again, is that in comparison in Merryhill to other wards within the city, there isn't necessarily the higher volume that you see in St Peter's and some of those localities. Less premises, though, and that's what I was trying to explain. The more premises, the higher. Yeah. So, again, I think going back to my original point that we do know that evidence suggests that if deprivation is something that is within that particular locality, there is a high, I suppose, higher percentage that people are going to be affected by alcohol harm. So the question was, is Wolverhampton committed to their strategy of health and wellbeing to reduce the amount of licenses? Yeah. And as I said, I think this is public health, one of very few responsible authorities up and down the country that actually sit within hearings. So I think that shows that we really take it seriously and it's something we're working with other responsible authorities to mitigate. Thank you, Chair. And sorry, I was not able to distribute the information, but I couldn't get it from the department in time. Not to worry. The applicant, do you have any questions for public health? Just one. It's a yes, no answer. Monique, as far as the supplementary bundle is concerned, could I ask you to have a look at page five and conditions 17 and 18? These are the single cams and high strength conditions. Do you have those? Have you got them? Could you confirm to this committee that you agreed those conditions in respect of ASDA on Stafford Road, the ASDA Express on Stafford Road on the 12th of April of this year? You did. Yes. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you. That was short and sweet. The next responsible authority is the licensing authority. Could you please make your representations to committee? Yes, thank you, Chair. So submitted representations under the prevention of crime and disorder as well as the protection of children of harm, we have mediated and agreed, reached agreement on many of the things. The disputed matters relate the restriction of single sales of alcohol and high strength alcohol. And I also say that I'm pleased to hear this was the first I'd heard of it, the condition about restricting hot refreshment to drinks. I think that that seems sensible, particularly, obviously, if people are using the petrol station and they're on long journeys. I think having caffeine is going to be generally positive for road safety. Each case is on its each application is on its own merits. I appreciate what's just been raised by the applicant. And what I would say about this application from the representations that we received in the agenda pack. It is clear that alcohol abuse and problem drinking is something which unites all members of the council working together across party lines on this matter. I do think there needs to be a wider discussion about the continued proliferation of alcohol availability. We have the suggestions of considering further accumulative impact zones. And whilst the licensing act is a permissive regime, clearly there are problems specific to Wolverhampton that the policy needs to be updated to reflect. What I would also say is I do think the attitude of what difference does it make regarding the sale of alcohol is profoundly wrong. If you have that attitude with alcohol supply, then everywhere may as well sell alcohol 24 hours a day. Of course, it makes a difference. It may be a small difference. It may be a difference that isn't immediately noticeable and takes months or even years. But it is inherent that increasing the availability of alcohol anywhere in the country will have some impacts, positive impacts as well as negative impacts. But I think it is rather flippant to suggest that there won't be any difference made by selling alcohol at this Asda. The conditions which I've proposed are to that beer, cider and mixed drinks such as cocktails and alcapops are to be stocked and sold in multi-packs of a minimum of four units. Multi-packs must not be split. A separate condition which the applicant has agreed to but on condition that we don't have the other condition, if that makes sense. The sales of alcohol are not to include any super strength lagers, beers or cider where strength exceeds 6.5% alcohol by volume. It's critical to restrict single sales and high strength beers, lagers and ciders as purchasing high strength single cans is a common behaviour of street drinkers. If there is a problem with a drink supplier not providing their product in multi-packs, that's simply a packaging problem and that can be agreed with suppliers particularly with somebody as much clout as Asda. There cannot be an insurmountable hurdle that prevents a drink supplier from providing their products in packages of four or alternative products being stocked. The applicant wants the wording to be tweaked to exclude craft products or provide an exemption for them. I've thought about this and had discussions over many many hours. Craft products are subjective and what is appealing to a street drinker or not appealing to a street drinker is just one person's opinion. There isn't anything enforceable that you can put in there that would do it. It is subjective and it can cause problems. It's also difficult because at the moment, so my conversations that we had this morning, those conditions wouldn't actually prohibit any of the range that they're currently proposing in the shop so they're not proposing to sell any single sales or the high strength alcohol currently. That's not in the range which is going to be stocked in the shop and it's very difficult for me to try and mediate because it is way too hypothetical. It's about potentially in the future we might want to stock some drinks. I tried to pull the examples that I provided about the 8% cider to give something tangible that we could consider. But these conditions will not negatively impact their business proposal because they're not intending to sell these products that would fall foul of the conditions currently anyway. It's in the future and like I said we can't go through every drink and say right I don't think that's acceptable, I do think that. Unfortunately sometimes conditions are heavy handed and they apply broadly but generally when I mediate with off licenses in the city that is something that we should be looking at as the removal of high strength alcohol and preventing single sales. And as you're aware yourself when off licenses are reviewed those that keep their license often have those conditions attached that may not have had them because those licenses are granted from many decades ago or simply just weren't attached at the time. Perhaps when the drink problems in Wolverhampton weren't as bad. Obviously evidence here today that people think that things are getting worse. So that's why I think that it's proportionate to put these conditions on there so that again part of the permissive regime allowing some responsible sale of alcohol for people to responsibly enjoy. Whilst trying to prevent the kind of sales that facilitate problematic drinking. That's everything in terms of my representations. Thank you chair. Thank you Greg. Councillors do you have any questions? Councillor Butte? Councillor Waldman? No chair. Then I have any. The applicant do you have any questions for the licensing authority? I thought Greg was going to address you on the hours. I'm happy with the proposed hours that they've put forward. I think that we've seen an increasing number of applications for off licenses in the city. Generally raising concerns. Obviously Kansas gets sight of that and I think that seeing two more 24 hour petrol stations selling alcohol that's kind of said right we need to have a thing here now. But as I've said I think that that needs to be part of a wider problem. I don't think that we can tackle the entire city in one as a subcommittee. Fortunately or unfortunately. Any further questions? Just to be very very clear Greg for everybody's note as far as the Mary Hills application is concerned and the hours you're happy with 7/11. Correct. That's fine thank you. Environmental health do you have any questions for the licensing authority? No thank you chair. Public health do you have any questions for the licensing authority? No thank you chair. West Midlands Police do you have any questions for the licensing authority? No thank you chair. Any interested parties do you have any questions for the licensing authority? Councillor Hyatt. Thank you very much chair. Please could you share how far do place based considerations come into what you've said today? Apologies when you say place based considerations? The specific site of the Asda Local is in the residential area. It's close to an area of where particularly vulnerable people are posed. It's an area already with a disproportionate amount of alcohol harm and we've seen the consequences of that. So how far has that context come into what you've just shared? Because I think one of the things you said that in the negotiations the blanket sale of not above 6.5% they wanted one or the other not having also they accept the proposal about single drink sale from multipacks and I understood that both of those conditions had been accepted. I think that's the correction that you might be wanting to say. But I wondered because I am new to licensing. When you make your licensing proposals how far do you take hyper local place based conditions into account? I'll try and explain as succinctly as I can. I'm familiar with the area. It's something we take into consideration. You have to categorise it. We have the statement of licensing policy which includes what they call the matrix approach. And that splits the city into different types of areas. So whether or not it's in the city centre, whether or not it's in the residential area which I categorise this as being in the residential area. And then the type of premises it is and then it recommends potential well I'd say opening hours but it's more like closing hours and unfortunately our policy is perhaps a bit vague. But what it does say is that in residential areas that our licenses should normally close at 11pm. So when it was proposed to be a 24 hour premises I didn't think that that was appropriate. We can also see we have a tool that public health is probably familiar with as well where you can see how many premises are nearby. But generally I kind of have a set amount, set conditions for this typical type of premises. So an off licence in a residential area and you can see the conditions that have been agreed. I mean I would say that perhaps there's been quite a lot of focus on what hasn't been agreed in the meeting today. But you can see that Asda have agreed to what I personally think are quite comprehensive conditions relating to a lot of the other things. And I think that to allay perhaps some of the concerns particularly of the interested parties and the other councillors about things not being logged correctly. Well there isn't a legal obligation for the premises to log any of this stuff and by putting a premises. So I think that refusing the license completely would actually maybe make things worse. I think that if you have the license in place then there's a bit of carrot and stick approach there. Because they're then not legally required because license conditions aren't legal requirements. But they're required by the conditions of their license to adhere to these things. So if you have a problem about you don't believe that things have been recorded in the incident log. And I would say that it doesn't appear that things have been done for whatever reason. Well now Deborah and her team when they go and inspect the premises they're required to have visibility of that incident log and they can check through. And if there is evidence of a disturbance or the kind of thing that is in the condition which is perhaps it would be helpful if I read it out. But if you've got evidence of and this has happened with other premises as well where we've got evidence that something's taken place. And you go in and if it's not in the incident log well then ASDA would then be facing a review of their license. Whereas if there's no license in place there's no control mechanism in place for that. But the condition that I agreed with them. So just read it out. An electronic or written incidents log will be maintained at the premises with a record of all incidents of crime and disorder reported to or by the premises. Any complaints received, seizures of fraudulent ID or other items. Any faults in the CCTV system and any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service. The incidents log will be produced to an officer of a responsible authority upon request. Where a crime is believed to have been committed the incident will be reported to West Midlands Police. The incidents log will be kept for at least 12 months and will be produced to an officer of a responsible authority upon request. So that perhaps would go some way to addressing Councillor Evans is concerned that there was a potential theft in there. I don't know whether there was or not. Sometimes things look like theft when they're not. But if there was that's something that could be checked. And I know that nationally we're becoming more concerned about the shoplifting. But they would be required to report all shoplifting matters which would then help the police to target this kind of illegal activity. Carol. Thank you so much chair. There's just one thing I didn't understand. You said that saying no to the license would be worse than saying yes. And their carrot and stick menu referred to a carrot and stick approach. Now that might be city wide policy national policy but thinking high pillow hyper locally thinking about the actual place and the residents that live opposite and not the side. And people that deal with the consequences of how can saying yes to selling alcohol when previously no sale of alcohol is taking place. Would that be better than just saying no carry on this you are doing now. Because the problems that have been raised by every. Again this is about the licensing regime being a permissive regime. If there has been no license in place to allow the premises to sell alcohol then all of the problems that have been reported here today that have already taken place cannot be as the result of the sale of sale or supply of alcohol from the premises. And there's no reason to believe that they would stop just because there wouldn't be a premises license in place. If the license was refused there's every reason to believe that the antisocial behaviour and things could continue. And there are other ways of tackling that and you know I think what we also need to be clear is about if the concern is about the premises being open 24 hours and it being a congregation point that isn't a matter for this committee to consider. Because opening hours are not a license of activity that's a planning matter and if that is the cause of the problem then that needs to be dealt with separately. So that's what I meant with in terms of if there's no license in place and there's already problems then when there's a license in place then that can kind of be better for us as responsible authorities and a licensed authority to engage with the premises. And the premises to be more accountable because they're given the benefits of being able to conduct all of the license of activities on site. There's far more of an incentive for that premises and that the manager of that store to comply with with the things that we're asking them to do. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Van is coming. Yeah. Can I just clarify whether the incident log that will be a part of the conditions will that record incidents that happen outside of licensing hours or will it just be subject to any incident that happens in licensing hours. Yeah. That will ask a good question. It doesn't specify during license of all hours. And yeah I would I would expect I mean absolutely the applicant could could agree agree to that anyway. I can help you with that. I mean the long and short of it is if the application is granted in the term sought it will allow the licensed hours will actually be from seven o'clock in the morning to five o'clock in the following morning. Because we've got late night refreshments 11 till five. We've got alcohol seven to 11. I can guarantee you that in the hour. So the two hours between five day anything that happens will still be recorded. The committee will will need to make a choice over the two incident log conditions because I agreed one with Kaylee and then Greg asked for something slightly different. They're both in the supplementary papers their numbers five and three. Pick which one you want. If you're going to grant it. Thank you. Ben. Yes. You quickly spoke about the metric approach and off license in this area. It's council policy that they should stop selling alcohol 11 p.m. Just to clarify that a bit for you. It says up to 11 p.m. But given densely residential area closer times may be earlier. Do you agree with that statement. Yes. In terms of I mean the problem is is that densely residential is subjective. And I consider that perhaps a bit more of a suburban environment. But I still think the 11 o'clock is inappropriate time for that premises. I mean given that it's 24 hours anyway. What I'm trying to say is that the problems experienced at this business cannot be caused by the sale of alcohol. Because they're not selling alcohol at the business. There are other problems that need to be dealt with and tackled. But it's not the sale of alcohol that is causing them. I think that would be more of an argument about limiting on the opening hours in terms of planning than there would be for the limitation of the sale and supply of alcohol. Thank you everybody. Ronald do you have any questions or any legal points? Sorry Wendy I didn't use the item behind Ben then. Just a quick one. I noticed in the conversations between you both that Sunday was maybe a point that could be discussed a little bit further. I think 12 o'clock probably is now there was some discussion over 12 o'clock. Well I'm gonna say 12 o'clock opening. Can it be 10 o'clock instead of 7 or something because these residents don't get any respite otherwise. That's entirely at the discretion of the subcommittee and I know that the applicant has said that there's nowhere else in the country that doesn't do it. That has those times. But it is down to the subcommittee. Generally when we're looking at on sales particularly in a residential area we wouldn't have alcohol being sold before lunchtime. So you know lunchtime is generally when it's sold for on sales. And I think that in terms of putting alcohol start times in the matrix policy I think that that would be really beneficial both for applicants and for the committee. And I think that that is something that will be done on the next review of the Statement of Licensing Policy. It's currently under review at the moment. I think that would be more helpful. Too old. Ronald do you have any questions? No. We're going to take a 10 minute comfort break so everyone can go and use the facilities and we'll come back in at 10 past 12. Thank you everybody. Sorry we're a little bit over time but we're back online now. The next responsible authority is West Midlands Police. Could you please make your representations to the subcommittee? Over to you Kayleigh. Good afternoon. Through you Chair. West Midlands Police have completed mediation with the applicant prior to this committee hearing. West Midlands Police would like to make the committee aware that we were not happy to support the 24 hour sale. This was communicated with the applicant as you have heard from the applicant today. West Midlands Police do not support the 24 hour sales for this site. Working closely with other responsible authorities in Wolverhampton, we understood that Wolverhampton City Council Licensing Department were mediating on this matter. Where professionals meeting West Midlands Police stated we support the mediation for the licenceable errors. The conditions which West Midlands Police mediated regarding the serving hatch was placed on the licence to ensure any sales, alcohol or other goods made at this premises would be through the serving hatch between those times. This is for the safety of those working inside the premises. An extensive CCTV condition has been added to the premise along with refusals logs. West Midlands Police Licensing Department have read through the representations within the bundle pack and understand the concerns for local residents regarding the premises. Therefore extensive searches of the police systems were completed along with communication with the local neighbourhood sergeants for the area when considering this application. West Midlands Police have nothing further to add at this time. Thank you Kayleigh. Councillors do you have any questions for West Midlands Police? Have we had any logs at this particular petrol station in the last 6 months? Logs yes relating to anti-social behaviour and things I would take into consideration for this licence application no. Environmental health do you have any questions for West Midlands Police? Public health do you have any questions for West Midlands Police? No thank you Chair. The Licensing Authority do you have any questions for West Midlands Police? Do you think that our conditions are different? I've asked for an incidents log and you've asked for a refusals log which presumably only relates specifically to refusing the sale of alcohol. They are different but an incident log is probably going to capture that as refusals. I think they can be on at the same time we have other licences that have it on. Both okay thank you. Interested parties do you have any questions to ask West Midlands Police? Carol can we keep it short and to the point please? When I asked for information about the number of dog attack incidents which was only 6 months ago that there was no hyper local information available because the West Midlands Police database was only across the West Midlands. It wasn't hyper local for Maryhill Ward do you have hyper local data for Maryhill Ward and incidents at that specific space? I'm able to search on the address for the location for incidents at that location. Thank you. Anyone else with any questions? Councillor Dalton? Just a quick one. Obviously we've had a lot of objections. I've got 20 of myself. Will you be looking at those objections later on regarding the incidents around that area? Maybe speak to some of the residents and follow them up? Will they be in relation to the licensed premises or other incidents in the location because that is not something I will cover now. If they are related to the garage and the premise licence then yes. But will they have to be reported via 999, 101 or online? Thank you both. Ronald do you have any questions or any legal arguments that we need to be made aware of? No chair. Thank you. We are now part 9 of the procedure where the interested parties are to make their representations. We are going to start with Nigel because he has to leave at 1. So over to you Nigel. Thank you very much. I'm here representing a group of local residents. We all live within probably 50 yards of the premises. I accept that you've been told there's no upgrade to the tannoy system or night serving act since it's been converted to ASDA. But we all feel that it is a lot louder. It is disturbing people of a night. We all know sound travels a lot easier at night time. And the serving act seems to be a lot louder as well. You can hear it banging and shutting. Deliveries. We've already covered that. One of the main issues that we have is put people on the way to and from the garage. And I know that probably doesn't, you might feel that doesn't come under your remit. But if the garage wasn't there they wouldn't be going there. And they're disturbing us. 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock in the morning, shouting and screaming, going to get things. Other things that happen, and this is where I do have a bigger concern, is some of the more major incidents where it's always arguments where people are trying to get into the shop. They want access into the shop to browse themselves rather than just say what they want through the serving action. And earlier this month there was one incident, I didn't hear it, I was in Cornwall at the time, but my next door neighbour was woke at 3 o'clock in the morning with somebody banging him and him to go into the shop. I just feel that when people know it's a licensed premises, that if they turn up wanting to get some alcohol in the middle of the night, that sort of situation is going to be considerably worse. It might not be, the incident log will say that, which is why I'm really welcome that that will be going on through the night as well, apart from that one hour. We have as a group of residents, we've all complained and done things, but not in an organised way. Believe me, we're a lot more organised now and we are keeping our own incident log, which we will be forwarding to everybody that needs it. It will be interesting to see if our incident logs match or whether the threshold of what you rightly call, I know you're a business, what you rightly call an incident might be. The threshold might be lower than what we consider an incident when we're disturbed at 2 and 3 o'clock in the morning. That is our main concerns. There's also a thing about how we've noticed in the council licensing draft for 25 that there's a serious issue and a major concern in Wolverhampton of people pre-loading by drinking alcohol before they go out. It's been noted by the Wolverhampton Council that this puts vulnerable people and people at risk and increases the likelihood of disorderly behaviour. I think that should be something that's considered when there's an extra licence being granted in an area that's already got, we believe, just in Mariel 19 outlets where you can buy alcohol in a small area. Thank you for your time. Not something I'm used to doing, so if I've rumbled a bit, please forgive me. Thank you Nigel, you did really well, don't worry. Other interested parties? Who would like to speak first? Ben? Chair, is there any chance of putting the slides up that I sent, or is that going to be problematic? It's literally because we've all been disseminated around, we've all had sight of them, that's why we haven't put them on, that's all. That's great. The first point I want to make is the application through the under challenge 25 scheme, CCTV and training, does attempt to address many issues like the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety and the protection of children from harm. But what greatly disturbs me is the application doesn't speak at all about the prevention of public nuisance. There's not one measure I can see in there that really addresses that concern. And I think all three cancerless here have had dozens of emails and phone calls about disturbances throughout the night, people shouting and screaming into the late hours and waking people up, because this is a residential area. New Street has terraced housing, and Colway Road has terraced housing, it's a densely packed residential area. So the main thing I want to focus on is the public nuisance part of the application. I leave the details of public health and environmental concern and what types of drinks should and should not be sold to the experts. But as you have seen through the video, and I hope you have all seen, there is evidence of people outside the hatch being drunk late at night, making a nuisance themselves, waking residents up. It's worth noting that the video was at night, and it's worth noting that the person was slurring their words, meaning they were drunk, so it is an alcohol-related problem. And I also want to say that while West Midlands Police, for the safety of the staff, has suggested a hatch between 10pm and 6am, that does make the problem of public nuisance a lot worse, because now the arguments are happening in the open air, and not inside a closed building where maybe loud voices will be muffled. I also want to refer you to the guidance issued under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, that specifically comments on focusing on the most sensitive periods. And it also says it may also be appropriate to address any disturbance anticipated by customers entering and leaving the premises. So in my view, I would say this type of disturbance you see in the video and what is being communicated via email is a good reason to put more restrictions on the licenses. Public nuisance is not just walk concerts and nightclubs, it can just be as simple as someone screaming at someone at a hatch. I hope you've seen the slide of the metric policy as well, and this was obviously a policy agreed by the full council, and it clearly says that an off-license in this type of area should close at 11pm at the latest. It also says that if the area is densely populated, that it might be more appropriate if the license ends sooner than that. And I put in a satellite image for you to show how densely populated the area is, I hope that helps in making your decision. It's also worth noticing that you can just about see in the image the Maryhill Flats, that is a deprived area, and does have vulnerable adults and children living there. And as mentioned by public health, this does mean that they are more vulnerable to harm as a result, and that should definitely be something worth considering when you're making your decision. And the last thing I really want the committee to have in mind is the fact that alcohol is a problem in Wolverhampton. I've got a slide in there showing the alcohol-related hospital emissions per 100,000 from 2022 to 2023. As you can see, Wolverhampton is in gold, and it's the second highest out of that long list of local authorities, including it's much higher than Dudley, cities and local authorities are very similar to Wolverhampton, that's very disturbing. It's much higher than England, the national average, so I think you should consider yourself as not being... Wolverhampton does seem to be a light touch when it comes to regulating alcohol, and I think we do need more heavier regulations, and I think that's something you should have in mind when you're making your decision. The final slide is three recommendations I would like you to consider. So the first one is very simple, it's limiting the sale and supply of alcohol off the premises, so it's not at night, so there's no risk of people being disturbed. The exact timing could be debated, obviously the policy of the council is no alcohol to be sold after 11 o'clock. It also says that in an area like this you might want to close it earlier. Today we heard from public health and they said in their view, for the sake of the public health, that maybe the license should start as early as 7, maybe the license should start as early as 12 o'clock. So I would take a great deal of time debating... sorry I've got a code. I take a great deal of time considering the hours to which you want to consider, but going back to my main concern that is the public nuisance and the fact that the application does not address this issue at all, I would definitely consider putting up signs as a requirement of the license holder. I made two suggestions, the first one is a sign encouraging people not to consume alcohol outside the front of the building, and the second one is a sign encouraging people who are leaving the area to just basically be quiet, a polite notice. I think that's two very reasonable suggestions and yeah, that's basically all I wanted to say. Thank you Ben. Councillor Dalton? Thank you chair. I'm not going to repeat everything I've said in my email, I think it's quite explanatory, but thank you for the opportunity to address everybody directly today. For the past three years I've been working closely with the residents of New Street, Colway Road, concerning nuisance emanating from the site, including drug dealing which takes place every day. To date I've received 20 plus emails, calls and objections to the sale of alcohol, especially after 11. This is the strength of feeling, but I can see that's been addressed so I'm not going to pursue that. The petrol station, as already stated, is situated in a very densely populated location, so noise and public nuisance fighting spills out into our community where I live, which does not get picked up on your cameras, so it doesn't always get reported. The noise alone from early deliveries and waste removal have affected my residents for a long time and the selling of alcohol we feel will compound these issues and put a huge strain on public safety. I see you feel like you've addressed the protection of harm to children by putting in the standards. I've been a foster carer for ten years, so I see first-hand the effects of alcohol in families. But who protects the child within the home? We have three high-rise blocks of flats basically across the road with the most disadvantaged children in our city, if you would add to their risk. Public health, let's look. Facts, let's get to facts. Wolverhampton, again, has the highest number of licensed premises per square kilometre in the West Midlands, 11. Much than the higher national average of 1.3. Treatment data, Merryhill, 69 people are receiving treatment, that's the people who do seek help. And specifically we've got 12 related deaths to it. And there does seem to be a correlation between the amount of outlets to the amount of treatment and deaths. So I would ask as well, if we do proceed with this license, to stop people buying it and drinking it outside and causing the nuisance, that we do look at an accumulative impact assessment. I know it's work that's done, but it's been done in Wensfield quite successfully, and it guards against people just popping outside and drinking it, more likely to go home. And lastly, I want to commend our licensing staff for a robust and thorough process of strategy, and I feel they really have our residents at heart in protecting our vulnerable people. Thank you. Thank you, Wendy. I'm sad I can talk for everyone around the table, we take on board everything you've said, and we do take alcohol issue and related deaths and treatment needed for our residents really seriously. It's not something we think about lightly. Public health already knows the amount of times I've asked them for stats and things like that. So it is something we do draw on. It's not nothing we take lightly in granting these licenses. So please take that, you know, Ben, that we do actually do take on board and take it very seriously. Councillors, do you have any questions? I mean, what Ben's saying with these conditions there, he would like to see them. What's the legality, though, of placing signs outside the front of a building saying you can't drink here, you can't consume alcohol? I think we'd all support that, but the legality and the difficulty of trying to police this is what really worries me. License holder signs at the exit from the building encourage patrons to be quiet until they leave the area, we'd all support that. But the issues of trying to actually police it and for citizens to get involved with noisy residents who have been drinking is another worry for me. But, you know, I commend that you've put those cases forward and I think that's very appropriate, but it's a difficult one for us to achieve easily. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Waldman? No questions, Chair. Just adding to that, I do know on various petrol stations I've been to that I normally sign each saying please, can patrons leave and be quiet on exiting the garage site? I do know I've seen that myself, just thinking about that one. The applicant, do you have any questions for the interested parties that you've heard today? Just for Councillor Evans, this committee will be required to determine this application on the basis of evidence. You've given evidence that there are issues in the area. Have you any evidence to bring to this committee that ASDA has ever sold to anybody who is drunk? No. No. You've also given evidence that your primary raison d'etre, so your primary reason for objecting is the public nuisance issue. Do you accept that the same Home Office guidance that you've quoted to the committee says that each responsible authority is to be regarded as an expert in his or her or their particular field? Do you accept that? It's paragraph 9.12, just accept it. If you'll let me speak, I haven't read the full guidance book because obviously I have to deal with many matters as a Councillor, but if you say that's in there, I believe you. So you accept that Environmental Health are to be considered as experts in the particular field. Environmental Health don't object to this application though, do they? They made recommendations to which you have discussed with them. I agree that my main concern is public nuisance and I'm very deeply concerned that that has not been addressed at all in the application. I was quite surprised that that one issue that most of the residents here have been complaining to me about has not been addressed at all. When it comes to Public Health and Environmental Health, I do trust in their expert opinion and that is why I haven't focused too much on those issues. Right. But, yeah. Okay, we'll leave it there. Thank you. Public Health, do you have any questions for the interested parties? No, thank you, Chair. The Licensing Authority, do you have any questions for the interested parties? It was just to say, obviously, time and again, the issue of deliveries and operating hours of when things are arriving on site have been a problem. That still remains outstanding, doesn't it, in terms of delivery times that there's been on there. Are there any? I think we're getting off the point here. There's a condition agreed with them which the experts are happy with. Anything to do with planning is planning. We'll be here all day if we start bringing in things. Sorry, okay. Because they keep raising the point, I just wondered why it was being raised if there's a condition. So, are you all happy with the condition that's been proposed regarding delivery times because that should address the problem of lorries arriving at unsociable hours? Is everybody happy with that condition? Yeah? Okay, okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. West Midlands Police, do you have any questions for the interested parties? No, thank you, Chair. Ronald, do you have any questions or any legal points we should be made aware of at this stage? No, Chair. We are now part ten of our procedure whereby each of the parties who have spoken will be given the opportunity to address the subcommittee. This is not to introduce new items or new matters or questions and I will not permit you to do so. It's just to sum up your representation. Questions will not follow and we shall do this in reverse order. Interested parties, do you have anything further to add? Nigel? Wendy? Ben? Carol? Thank you, everybody. West Midlands Police, do you have anything further to add? No, thank you, Chair. Licensing Authority, do you have anything further to add? Just to summarise that I think we can all recognise ASDA as a responsible business but we need to balance that with addressing the specific problems which have been raised in the area. The application isn't as it was originally proposed. There have been many changes to it. The vast majority have been agreed by the applicant. The licence activity hours have been vastly restricted from 24 hours. We know that the only things that are going to be happening after 11 o'clock would be selling hot coffee, which again I think is not really objectionable. The problems that have arisen prior to this application cannot have been caused by licenceable activities because the premises were not licensed. The behaviour of drunk people in the area is something that needs to be dealt with separately. Some of the conditions on the licence will help the public authorities in the city to tackle those problems by working together and getting more information and things like that. Obviously with myself there remains the issue in relation to the licence conditions proposed. My request is still that those two licence conditions relating to single sales and high strength alcohol remain as I originally requested. Obviously I'll leave that to yourselves to decide. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Ronald, he has a point of order, I think. Sorry, this is probably the preceding next point, but just before you go Greg, obviously as part of the committee deliberation they will need to consider how they deal with this application. And obviously one of the steps that they need to consider is whether to grant the application subject to any conditions. The main concern that the committee may have is there's obviously a draft of conditions that have been proposed by the applicant. Now I just need to be, I think I, the committee need to be clear exactly where the authority stands so far as the arguable conditions 17 and 18 and 19. If the committee is going to be asked to consider these as appropriate conditions, it is quite clear to actually have a summary specifically from the licensing authority so far as 17 and 18 and/or 19 are concerned. So at least the committee is quite clear when it retires what the position is in respect to those three. Is that quite clear? It is. If you just bear with me I'll hopefully be able to point you to a page. Entry agenda, I think I have page three and four. I'm looking for, it's fine, I'm not looking for that. Okay, so on page 90 of the bundle, of the first bundle. The top paragraph, the bottom two bullet points, that's what I originally proposed and obviously the ones that have come back on the supplementary agenda pack. Those are the applicant's alternative versions of those. Critically they permit the sale of single sales, which is the problem that we, you know. Thank you, Ronald, for that clarification point. Public health, do you have anything further to add? Nothing further, Chair. Environmental health, do you have anything further to add? No, thank you, Chair. Applicant, would you like anything further to add? Just very briefly, Chair, and I will be very quick. I'm going to start with reference to the Home Office guidance and four paragraphs in particular. For Ronald's note, the first paragraph is paragraph 10.15, which says, Shops, stores and supermarkets should normally be free to provide sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises at any times when the retail outlet is open for shopping, unless there are good reasons based on the licensing objectives for restricting the hours. The Home Office advises that you should be able to do it if you're open, unless there are good reasons not to. 9.43 says, The committee's determination should be evidence-based, and of course that comes from the case law, which says, We don't determine applications on the basis of concerns, supposition or prejudices. We heard from Councillor Evans, didn't we, about he's very concerned about the risk of this happening and the risk of that happening, but the Home Office guidance, following the Thwaites case, says, No, we determine on the basis of real evidence. 9.12, Each responsible authority is to be considered as an expert in their respective field, and paragraph 2.1, Licensing authorities should look to the police as their main source of advice on crime and disorder. So, against that backdrop, what are, so what is the evidence in respect of what were three narrow issues in this case, which I think is now down to one narrow issue. When we started, the issues are whether the license should be granted at all, if it was going to be, what should be its start time, and finally, should the business be permitted to sell single cans of premium or artisan products, as it does across the country. So, what is the evidence? Well, the evidence is this. There is no cumulative impact policy in force, and need for license premises is not an issue. The evidence is that you have a large, major operator with vast experience. This is ASDA, with the full weight of an experience of that company, and a spotless track record. A company that is demonstrably working in partnership with the authorities has, in Greg's words, agreed a comprehensive list of conditions, and agreed a reduction in hours. We work in partnership to promote the licensing objectives. Cayley didn't want 24 hours. The police are your main source of advice on issues of crime and disorder. So, we amended, and we want to make sure that the police are happy. So, as far as the grant of the license is concerned, there are no representations at all from any of the responsible authorities, no representations at all from the experts. And as far as the residents were concerned, the vast majority, as far as I could see, were concerned about late night sales, sales after 11 o'clock, and that's, of course, not what I'm asking for at all. Interestingly, we had Councillor Hyatt trying to push Cayley, didn't we, on police and antisocial behaviour. Is it hyper-local? Cayley's answer, yes it is, and there's nothing I want to add as far as the license application is concerned. So, I think as far as the start time evidence is concerned, nobody has an issue now with 7 o'clock in the morning, so I'm not going to go any further there, and as you've seen in the correspondence, ASDA doesn't have a start time later than 7 o'clock, other than in cumulative impact areas, this isn't one at all. Which takes us to evidence on single sales, doesn't it? Again, not an issue to the police. Your principal source of advice on crime and disorder antisocial behaviour. Not a shred of evidence before the committee that what ASDA does in nearly a thousand stores elsewhere causes a problem, which is, and of course in its convenience store estate there's no evidence at all that the condition that we've agreed previously with Monique, in the last couple of months, which is conditions 17 and 18, aren't operated without any problems at all. And you may think, well who is the best person? Who's best placed to give evidence on whether this causes a problem? Is it the company with a thousand stores? Billions and billions and billions of transactions? Or is it the licensing officer? Well, in my respectful submission, this is a company that operates in all sorts of areas, residential areas, cumulative impact areas, areas of high deprivation, every conceivable area, every conceivable demographic, and do we have a shred of evidence of any difficulty caused by an ASDA operating with these conditions? And the answer, of course, is no. So what I'm going to do, is I'm going to invite you to grant the license. I'm going to invite you to grant the license to permit alcohol sales from 7 to 11pm, because I don't believe there's any evidence to the contrary there. And I'm going to invite you to impose all of the conditions, including 17 and 18, on the basis that to find otherwise would be to find evidence that they are necessary and appropriate in these particular circumstances. And the evidence, there isn't any evidence to that effect. This is, we've heard from Greg, a responsible business, it operates responsibly, it works in partnership, there will be no problem moving forward. If there is, as Nigel said, oh we'll be watching, we'll be there, yeah, well it's not happened yet, because we will work. We'll meet with Councillor Dalton if she wants to meet, we will sort it. And issues away from licensing, we will deal with. I was criticised for saying, well what difference is it going to make putting a bottle of wine on a shelf? Well the answer, and I stick to it, is our experience, the evidence is, it won't make any difference at all. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you for that. Ronald, do we have any legal points or anything else we need to bring up before we retire? Yes, right, obviously the legal implications have been set out in the report. The only thing I want to address is, I agree with a lot of what the applicant has said so far as the guidance is concerned. I'm impressed with his photographic memory of the relevant sections of the guidance, but it is also fair to point out that the committee has to determine this application. And the committee has a number of steps, which also include refusing the application, notwithstanding the comments that my friend has said I'm urging the committee to grant the applications on the basis he's saying. Now there have been a number of representations that have been made by certain interested parties. The committee is charged with considering all representations made today. There are obviously issues and the committee has taken to account regarding evidence supporting certain representations, but nevertheless the committee does need to take into account representations of everybody that has attended and made representations to the committee. The other thing I also want to point out is notwithstanding the fact that the licensing act is obviously permissive in its nature, you do have the section 182 guidance that the applicant has quoted from memory. You also have Wolverhampton's own licensing policy that I'm sure the applicant is aware of and the committee will also be aware of and will also be taking into account in reaching his decision to determine this application. Whether to grant the application, whether to refuse the application, whether to insert certain modifications as suggested because I don't think any of the other steps set out in the act are particularly relevant on this particular application. But it's fair to point out that there is a balance between the competing parties so far as the applicant is concerned and so far as the parties concerned who are essentially objecting to the application being made today. Thank you everybody for your time. We're now going to retire now and make our decision. It will take as long as it takes so we give it the full respect that it actually needs. So if everyone could leave the room it would be much appreciated. Thank you everyone. Can we have one meeting not three? Thank you. We've called everyone back because we need a point of clarity. Our solicitor is going to explain what we're trying to ask. Over to you, Ronald. Right. First and foremost I think I need to apologise because there is a procedural point that came up and ideally should have been dealt with right at the beginning of these applications. Clearly there are two applications that the committee is dealing with today and self evidently everybody in this room including the committee has read both reports in relation to both committees. Now the committee is aware of it that it needs to consider both applications on their merits. Nevertheless there is obviously a similarity in terms of the applicant nexus, the location and the committee is also minded that it needs to be making consistent decisions and it's being asked to make two decisions on two applications with quite a number of similarities. And it may not necessarily be quite clear what the distinction between the two applications are, although it is noted that there are certain differences in terms of what's been mediated and agreed. Now the procedure that we are suggesting to adopt given the two multiple applications today is actually not to make a decision in relation to the first application now but to hear the second application and then effectively to make decisions on both at the same time. Taking into account exactly what the similarities are but more significantly what the distinction between both applications are so that perhaps consistent decisions can be made in relation to both. Now as far as the hearing regulations are concerned I'm sure the applicant's list is correct and I'm not entirely sure there's actually anything that prevents the local authority from adopting a procedure in that manner. But what we are proposing subject to any views, objections otherwise from everybody in this room is effectively to proceed with the second application and then the committee will retire and you'll get decision determination in relation to both Murray Hill and Millfield. Basically that's the idea. I'm quite happy for the authorities and the applicant to take a few minutes, think about this and then come back and let us know whether they're happy with that or not. From our perspective it makes perfect sense. I can tell you, as I told you outside Ronald, the second application won't take 20 minutes because I'm not going to repeat myself and we've only got two representatives here and the issues are to all intents and purposes are identical so it won't take very very long at all. As far as the regulations are concerned the committee is perfectly entitled to regulate its own process and its own proceedings. It seems like a very very sensible way of doing it as far as I'm concerned and there's no objection from this side. Public Health, Environment Health, Greg. [inaudible] Okay then, we're going to carry on. If those that are not part of this proceeding want to leave we'll get their decision to both yourselves once we've come to the end of this one. Okay, sorry about that. I just want to make sure we're doing it consistently and across the board. [inaudible] Thank you everybody. We're following the same procedure as the last one and we are at point six and I shall ask the officer from Licensing to outline the report. Over to you Deb. Thank you Chair. The Statutory Licensing Subcommittee are here today to consider an application for a premises license in respect of ASDA Express, PFS, Milfields Road Service Station, 40302 Milfields Road, Wolverhampton WV 140QJ. The application was received on the 2nd of May 2024 from Euro Garages Limited and is for the provision of late night refreshment and the sale supply of alcohol off the premises. A copy of the application can be found at appendix one. The premises are in the Ettingshall North Ward and a location plan is attached at appendix two. The application was made properly and all statutory requirements have been complied with by the licensing authority. All responsible authorities have been consulted on this application. Relevant representations have been received from West Midlands Police, Public Health and the licensing authorities. Copies of the representations can be found at appendices three to five respectively. West Midlands Police have mediated with the applicant. This correspondence is attached at appendix six. The licensing authority and the solicitor acting for the applicant have made an attempt at mediation. Copies of the correspondence can be found at appendices seven and eight respectively. Supplementary information has been provided by the applicant's solicitor. The applicant, the applicant's solicitor and all those who have submitted relevant representation have been invited to attend the hearing. The application is before the subcommittee for consideration. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Deb. Donna, can I confirm that a copy of the report has been sent out to all parties in advance of the meeting? Yes, it has, Chair. Can I confirm with yourselves that that's an accurate report? Yes, it is. Thank you. We're now part seven of the procedure where the applicant is to present their case in full. The floor is up to yourself, sir. Thank you very much. And I'm not, you'll be very pleased to know I'm not going to do it all again. So what I'm going to concentrate on, Members Committee, if I can, is the differences here. So this is an application for a 24 hour licence and for late night refreshments. But again, the late night refreshments will be for hot drinks only. Now, the differences again, there's not a single resident representation, but you know the area much better than me. This is probably much more akin to our site at Stafford Road, given that it's, I don't know what you might call it, mixed or light industrial or something like that. Big roundabout, you know, 24 hour petrol filling station, 24 hour convenience store, 24 hour licence. Again, discussions with Kayleigh and Kayleigh said. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Discussions with Bao on this one. And yeah, the hours weren't, weren't a concern as far as this one is concerned. So there we are. We've only got two representations this time and they're exactly the same. And so, again, I'm not going to go into it all again. The only representation as far as ours is concerned is Greg's. And Greg, you've heard, said, oh, you know, we think it should be 12, we should be finishing at 11, whatever. What I will say to you is that we were granted a licence in Wolverhampton in April, May for 907 Stafford Road. This is an identical application and those two conditions that we were talking about earlier that were 17 and 18 in the old supplementary bundle were agreed with Monique. And she was perfectly happy with those and they appear in this one as, sorry, forgive me, the conditions 16 and 17 because we don't have the environmental health condition. All of the other conditions are the same. So there you are. I'm not going to go through what ASDA does, how it does it, because it's exactly the same as before. I will just sum up at the end again because I think that's important. But suffice to say, we're in a very different situation here. It's 24 hour licence, all the same policies and procedures, and we're down to whether or not we can sell single cams of craft products. And I maintain that as we do that in a thousand and odd licence premises, we are the best person to decide that. And in the absence of any evidence that it causes a problem anywhere else, that's what I'm going to urge you to do right at the end. Thank you. Thank you. Councillors, any questions? Councillor Butt? No, no, I think that's clarified a few things for me, thank you. Councillor Wildman? No questions, Chair. And there's none for myself. Thank you. Public Health, do you have any questions for the applicant? No questions, Chair. The Licensing Authority, do you have any questions for the applicant? No questions, Chair, thank you. West Midlands Police, do you have any questions for the applicant? No, thank you, Chair. Ronald, do you have any questions for the applicant or any legal points that we should be made aware of at this stage? No, Chair. We're now point eight of the procedure where the responsible authorities are to make their representations. We will start with Public Health first. Over to you. Question, Chair, because the representation is the same as the other, do I need to read it out still? Nothing new to be added. If they're identical, then I shouldn't think so, just do the summing up at the end like everyone else, then I just have to go through the motions through my paperwork. Nothing new, Chair. Okay, then. Can we just confirm for the record that they are identical to the previous representations made in relation to Mary Hill, right? Yes. Okay, thank you. Just for Donna's sake. Okay. Councillors, do you have any questions for Public Health? No. No questions, Chair. And I have none. Licensing Authority, do you have any questions for Public Health? No, thank you, Chair. West Midlands Police, do you have any questions for Public Health? No, thank you, Chair. Ronald, do you have any questions for Public Health? No, Chair. Thank you. Next, we'll move on to the Licensing Authority. Please make your representations to the subcommittee, Greg, unless they're the similar representations we've had and we can just note them on for Donna's notes. Thank you, Chair. Yes, so obviously very similar to the last one. However, there is an agreement around the times, it's still a 24-hour application. I appreciate that the police have not objected to that. I would strongly request that the opening, sorry, the alcohol times are restricted between 7 and 11. I appreciate what you were saying about it being in a potentially a light industrial area. However, I would actually categorise it as a special consideration area. It is next to the Bilston CIZ. So whilst it's not particularly residential in that way, there is to a far greater extent than the Maryhill one, a greater density of licensed premises in the area. Other than that, again, same two conditions as the previous one. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Councillors, do you have any questions? No, Chair. No, Chair. The applicant, do you have any questions for Greg? No, thank you. Thank you. Public Health, do you have any questions for Greg? No, Chair. Westminster Police, do you have any questions for Greg? No, thank you, Chair. Ronald, do you have any questions for the Licensing Authority or any legal points we should be made aware of? Just one question, actually. I know, I'm just going back and looking at my notes. The applicant mentioned, now I'm not going to show you Greg, you can actually comment on this, but he talks about this application is akin to a site at Stafford Road. Right. Correct. I mean, the only, because obviously we don't really know very much about that, but there is obviously an issue regarding, there may well be an issue regarding consistencies. And from my understanding, obviously a licence was granted at their premises at Stafford Road, and I'm not entirely sure what exactly is akin in relation to this application and the other application, given the fact that, if my understanding is correct, Stafford Road has been granted premises licence from 6 a.m. Is that correct? Or am I wrong on this? I think before, I mean, if we are going to draw parallels, and we need to be quite clear what they are, because we're being asked, we're being told these things, but we're not quite clear exactly what the parallel is. The long and short of it is this, Ronald. Each case, as we've said, is determined on its own merits. I was referring to Stafford Road on the basis it's akin as far as area is concerned. The position here is we've applied for 24 hours. Public health haven't got an issue with 24 hours. The only person who has an issue with 24 hours is Greg. And if we amended, and I can't remember, as I said, I've done 350 of these recently, if we amended Stafford Road, that would be because we'd had that discussion with the police. And we know the police position here is that they don't oppose 24 hours. I'm not sure what the question was, but I'll just try and go through that a little bit. So it wasn't myself who mediated on the other ASDA application. So I can't particularly comment on that. It is each case on its own merits. There isn't a cumulative impact zone near the Stafford Road one. They are different sites. As Richard said earlier, we're each experts in our own respective part of licensing. And just because the other responsible authorities haven't put representations in about the opening hours doesn't undermine mine in any way. And without getting into it, for all of the reasons and all of the problems that Wolverhampton faces as a city, not just its constituent areas. And again, particularly with this one, it is in a special consideration area. If we refer back to the policy and one of the things that it is clear on is that actually an off licence in a special consideration area shouldn't really be granted them. The matrix policies, the licenses shouldn't normally be granted there. So there's a rebuttable presumption. Now an operator such as ASDA and again their agreement with most of the conditions, but not all of them. I believe that the premises could be operated responsibly if all of the conditions that I requested are put on the license and that it is restricted to between seven and eleven hours. But it should be noted that the premises is in a special consideration area, there's a rebuttable presumption, statement of license in policy says no off licenses in special consideration areas. It's not in a cumulative impact zone, it's just outside of a cumulative impact zone which would constitute a special consideration area in terms of the statement of license in policy. From a legal perspective, are you saying that this application is subject to a rebuttable presumption of refusal? The answer is no. Apologies, no it's not. There's not a rebuttable presumption of refusal but it's close to an area where there is and the policy is clear that what I'm trying to emphasize the policy saying we shouldn't be granting a license here while at the same time trying to defend my decision to say but I am happy for ASDA to grant a license here. If all of the conditions and the mediation that I've requested is agreed, but yes I apologize, you are right, there is no rebuttable presumption. But that's because it seems a bit of a, I know we talk about red lines on premises license plans but just for there to be a hard closed wall at the red line and if you're in the red line you know you can't have your premises and then if you're on the opposite side of the street you can have your premises. So we wouldn't, we almost certainly wouldn't grant a 24 hour off license in the Bilston CIZ and they're just over the ring road on the other side and they're saying well you know we're outside we should be having the thing. If ever there's an argument to have the graduated approach, well yes we'll give you the off license but it's not appropriate to have a 24 hour off license right next to the CIZ but yes the applicant is absolutely correct. There is not a rebuttable presumption in a special consideration area but the policy is clear, no off licenses in special consideration areas. Thank you for that Greg yes I'm well aware of the Ettingshall North, it actually falls in my ward so I know exactly where it is and I understand both sides. Next we move on to the West Midlands Police to make your representations, over to you Kaylee. Thank you chair, through you chair West Midlands Police have successfully mediated with the applicant and the agent has signed the mediation document, conditions added to the license are surrounding CCTV, refusals log and a serving hatch which can be seen on pages 1 through 4 of the bundle pack. Whilst we appreciate West Midlands Police have not raised representation to the sale of alcohol, we will be guided by our subcommittee on this matter. Thank you. Thank you. Councillors any questions for Kaylee? No chair. And is it my understanding that the West Midlands Police are happy for 24 hour trading from this outlet, from what I've read in the notes? I've stepped in to make these representations so I'm not sure what my colleague would have checked and discussed for this matter I'm afraid. Ok, just wanted to clarify that, that's fine. The applicant do you have any questions for West Midlands Police? On the basis they're not objecting no, thank you. Public health do you have any questions for West Midlands Police? No chair. Licensing authority do you have any questions for West Midlands Police? No thank you chair. Ronald do you have any questions for West Midlands Police or any legal points we should be made aware of? No chair. Thank you, we're now part 10 of the procedure whereby each of the parties who have spoken will be given the opportunity to address the subcommittee. This is not a time to introduce new matters or questions and I will not permit you to do so. You should just sum up your representations. If we start with West Midlands Police is there anything further you wish to add? No thank you chair. The licensing authority anything else you wish to add? Nothing other than to emphasise if we are supposed to apply things consistently then you know if we have 7 till 11 on the 1 then it would make even more sense to be 7 till 11 on the 1 that's in the special consideration area and again repeated request for both of the single sales and the high strength conditions. Thank you. Thank you Greg. Public health anything further to add? Nothing further chair. Applicant is anything else you wish to add at this stage? Well just very briefly yes if we can go back to the section 182 guidance because the paragraph 10.15 here is particularly relevant and of course paragraph 10.15 says shop stores and supermarkets should normally be free to provide sales of alcohol for consumption off the premises at any times when the retail outlet is open for shopping unless there are good reasons based on the licensing objectives for restricting those hours. So this is a 24 hour shop and we're looking to see whether there is any evidence of any good reason for restricting those hours based on the licensing objectives. There is no evidence whatsoever in this case that would in my respectful submission mean that you could restrict the hours. There is a policy everybody responsible authorities every councilor local resident whatever could have objected if there was any evidence whatsoever upon which to do so. And in this particular case there is absolutely no evidence at all that in my that would mean that you could restrict the evidence we've had. Oh it's near a cumulative impact zone. Well yes but you've got to if you're going to have a zone you've got to have a boundary and if this was in an area where there was a particular problem it would be inside the boundary. It's not. And the idea that oh it's a bit close and therefore it shouldn't be granted. Well that just that just doesn't wash that will never wash in any appeal court in the land. So there's no evidence about the hours. There's no evidence on the policy and this exactly the same position exists. Now I've just been told by Mr. Ackles look you know here we are. If they want to restrict the hours we would not appeal a decision that gave us exactly what we've got at Stafford Road which is six to twelve. As far as the conditions are concerned then we are absolutely we've nailed our colours to that mast already. And if you're looking at consistency well let's have six to twelve like we've got in Stafford Road for alcohol sales. Let's have late night refreshment limited to hot drinks only between eleven and five in the morning and let's have exactly the same two conditions that we agreed with Monique on Stafford Road as far as single cans and ABVs are concerned. Because at the end of the day the absolute best person here to determine how it runs its premises is ASDA and it runs them without any difficulty whatsoever and there's no evidence to the contrary. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you for that Ronald. Is there any legal advice that we need to listen to or any points need raising before we retire? Not really, Chair. For the sake of just repeating what I said earlier at the end of the Mary Hill application so I'm not really going to rehearse the whole thing again. OK thank you Ronald. We are going to retire now and we will be debating both so we'll call you back in once we've made our decision. We're going to retire now and make that decision. Thank you for your cooperation. Thank you everybody for coming back and having patience with us but we wanted to do both sets of businesses justice. We have decided to grant the applications. Ronald will run through what we actually want in the conditions. I just want to thank ASDA and all the staff as well for their interactions and in particular the mediation because reading through the bundles we know how complex that has been. So thank you to everyone that's worked hard and hopefully we've met a resolution that's happy for everyone. Over to you Ronald. Right. So starting with the first application. Mary Hill. Obviously the applicant mediated with the authorities in relation to the opening hours so that's been agreed between 7 o'clock and 11 p.m. The conditions proposed by the applicant and mediating with the authorities which are set out to pages three to five of the supplementary agenda bundle agreed. However that's obviously from Paragraphs 1 to 15. Let me just check myself here. So 1 to 16 1 to 16 in relation to Mary Hill to include the following conditions recommended by the licensing authority. These are a that beer cider and mixed drinks such as cocktails and alcohol pops are to be stocked and sold in multi packs of a minimum of four units multi packs must not be split and be cells of alcohol and not to include any super strength lagers beers or ciders where the strength exceeds six month five a b a b b alcohol by volume is appreciated these conditions were not agreed by the applicant. However the committee has listened to the representations made by all parties and accepts recommendations made by the licensing authority with regard to these conditions. Now moving on to mill fields that application is also granted subject to the following conditions. The time again is 7 to 11 p.m. The committee feels this is in line with the city of Hampton licensing statement of licensing policy especially noting that these premises falls within a special consideration area and that policy has been approved by the council following evidence based representations and white scale consultations across the bar. The conditions again set out to page 33 to 34 of the supplementary agenda bundle agreed for avoidance of any doubt. These are the conditions at scanning their game page 33 paragraphs 1 to 15 only with the additions of the similar conditions recommended by the licensing committee namely the beer cider mixed drinks such as alcohol cocktails and alcohol pops to be stocked and sold in multi packs of a minimum of four units. Multi packs must not be split. So the alcohol are to include any super strength lagers beers or ciders where the strength exceeds six point five a b e. The committee notes that the applicant confirmed that the operation and the business are identical in both premises and the committee therefore feels that it is important to take a consistent approach in relation to the conditions of both applications. Obviously as you know there is a right of appeal in relation to these decisions from anybody who's made any representations within 21 days from receipt of the written decision. Written decision will be provided within five working days from today on two three four five. So you're looking at first of July at the latest. Thank you very much indeed. And members and officers thank you very much indeed for your time today. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you everybody for your interactions and have a safe journey. OK. Thank you.